Do closeted celebrities have a right to privacy?

Question

I’m a celebrity blogger famous for outing closeted celebrities. Some people even call me “The Internet’s most devlish gossip columnist” and call my blog “Hollywood’s Most-Hated Web site.”

Answer 1

Yes, I do believe it's wrong to out anyone before they're ready, even though I think that if every gay & lesbian celebrity, sports figure, corporate executive, and elected official were to come out at the same time, the positive impact that it would have on society would be astronomical. The only way that some people are going to get over their uptight, revisionist, selfish, puritanical belief systems is to shock them with reality. As long as people still actually choose to believe that the gay world is limited to orgies, pride parades, and fashion design, nothing will change.

Answer 2

Well, yes. . . and no to a certain extent.

Some people say celebrities are normal people. While they really are no different than regular people, they aren't treated that way. I mean, why should a runner up in American Idol not be able to make an album but Paris Hilton can just cause she wakes up with the urge to?

If they can get all these benefits and opportunities just for being famous (even if they have no experience in that area, like a singer deciding she wants to be an actor) you can not say they are normal, equal people. That doesn't mean they should never have a moments rest from the paparazzi and whatnot, but it also doesn't mean they deserve absolute solitude.

Just think of the small fish big pond expression. For example, you're a normal closeted person working in a large workroom. Everyone in that workroom doesn't need to know that you're gay, but if someone finds out the whole work room will soon know. Now, for a celebrity it's the same thing only in a bigger workroom - the world.

So the point is that you shouldn't be diggin' into they're lives to find out if they are gay or not. If you have good reason to believe they are, go ahead and look into it. Telling the world they're gay is a mean thing to do (how do you think the normal guy in the work room would feel?) but it isn't an inhuman or catastrophic thing to do.

Answer 3

I think they do. In this culture there are a few things that just drive such a deep, clear divide between people (religion, politics, etc) and one thing is a person's sexuality. When someone finds out they are gay, everything changes. Their friends and family look at them differently and oftentimes in not so good ways.

Usually, gay actors are relegated to playing gay characters such as the sidekick or the girl's best friend. How many gay leading men do we have in Hollywood pulling down checks on Brad Pitt or George Clooney's level? How many gay actors and actresses are winning awards for things other than being gay while straight actors are praised to the high heavens and getting Oscars for bravely portraying homosexuals?

I know that that's not the issue, but I was making a point that being gay does have an effect on things. It's not like wearing a dress to the red carpet or dating "bad boy A" or "good girl B" where it's no big deal. Being gay is a big deal because of the stigma it carries in how people treat homosexuals. Therefore, it should be up to the individual when, where, and how it is dealt with.

I remember an experience in school where I was so obsessed with this guy and didn't have the nerve to tell him. When I finally did, he said he already knew because someone else told him. I was furious! Why would this person take it upon themselves to let such a big secret slip, especially when it wasn't any of their business anyway? Therefore I think it is rude and unfair that someone has to be dragged out of the closet by some random internet blogger or some irate castmate flinging the "F-G" word backstage.

I also read a comment where it was said that a person basically gives up their privacy when they become famous. I also don't think that is so. True, they have to deal with scrutiny from the general public, but the comment made sort of hinted that a famous person has no right to privacy. I kind of agree if it means old obscure roles being brought up or cameras going off when someone is acting up at a club, but if it's something of this nature or other personal problems, then no.

Answer 4

Everyone should have a right to privacy, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will get it in the real world. However ruthless the paparazzi can be, there are still privacy laws that protect people (famous or not.) Everyone is guarantied privacy in their own home and no one can deny you this fundamental right. Law enforcement is always there to help should anyone break in or trespass on your property. However once you step outside your private property you become fair game. To put it into context, It's really no different then a hired private investigator secretly following and photographing a man because his wife suspected he was cheating.

In much the same way the PI would most definitely find out if the man was having an affair or not, the paparazzi WILL find out if a popular celebrity is 'in the closet.' Someone who's in the spotlight long enough will never be able to ensure their secret is kept safe forever. It would be very naive to believe otherwise, right or wrong.

Being a celebrity has ALOT of perks but these benefits come at a price. Like it or not, a celebrity must expect people to be watching them closely and learn to cope with that.

Answer 5

I 100% believe that closeted celebrities have a right to privacy. I do however feel that because of an individuals celebrity status, they will be in the public eye much more and it would be very hard for them to keep things like a lifestyle "in the closet". The real question we should be asking is why should anyone feel the need to stay in the closet. We as people need to accept that everyone will be different from us in one way or another and that is what makes all of us so special. I feel that although we have lots of work to do in accepting other poeple's differences, we really have come a long way and since celebrities are able to reach the most people, being outed might be a good thing for the population as a whole. I'm not saying that it's fair to the person being outed, but it might give someone the courage to come out of the closet themselves. So long story short, I'd like to give some advice to the celebrities that might still be in the closet. Accept yourself, love yourself and be yourself. You are in a unique position to help someone and so come out of the closet on your own terms. After all this really isn't something that should be a big deal, any decent person should look at you the same way if you are straight or gay.

Answer 6

Everyone has the right to privacy; however, the impact of a known person's "personal matters" drastically changes the minute one chooses the public arena as a means of livelihood.

Once a person decides to enter into "Show Business," "Politics," or "Big Business" their public life, which includes almost any social setting, changes and they need to accept the responsibilities that come with fame and fortune. An argument can be made that the artistic talents of an individual are used to display the tendencies and habits of a society over a specific duration of time. This is in fact how we define "culture."

Celebrities should realize, and accept, that the paparazzi are an undoubtedly realistic opportunity cost when one chooses to enter the entertainment industry. This cost should be carefully calculated when making career choices. The public after all ends up paying the bill not only in the literal sense of receipts and taxes, bust dually in the result of positive and negative externalities. Celebrities, whether they like it or not, are ambassadors to the public and should only promote those values which they personally view to be completely genuine and human, as their actions have direct effects on the behavior of a populous.

The ambiance of the nation greatly depends upon the attitude that is created by its artists/celebrities. The person who is honored to be considered an artist/celebrity must accept the responsibility of improving the nation's ethos, and behave in a manner that is representative of the people (a quasi-inter/national/cultural/lingual representative).

I would make the claim that most celebrities are in fact artists [whether it be visual, auditory, transactional (business), or gubernatorial (statesmanship)]. An adequate artist requires a certain amount of knowledge, maturity, and insight that should be expressive of not only the individual, but also of the society as a whole.

This then is where the question lies. It is not whether or not closeted celebrities have a right to privacy (they never will, this is what they signed up for it), but rather what is the social optimum for celebrity privacy; and finally, how do we as a society limit or promote the actions of a celebrity to help shape a representative social conscience?

Answer 7

I believe that everyone has the right to privacy and that the American public gets pleasure from "stars" pain in there lives. Whether or not it is being gay, a drug addict, being abused it is not our right to know everything. Take a moment and be in there shoes and how would you feel if that was happening to you? What if when you were at your lowest point, that the media was filming it and following you around. How would that make you feel?
Now on the other side which I don't fully agree with but semi do. When you are a celebrity you also know that you are going to be on the camera. That doesn't mean anyone has the right to out you but the people that do probably don't have the highest morals in the world and don't care about other peoples feelings. But that is part of the celeb world so you have to take the positive with the neg.
The question was do celebs have the "right" to privacy? The answer is yes, do people care that they have the right the answer is no.
With certain privileges comes certain responsibility. Gotta take the positives and negatives and see which is more worth it to you.

Answer 8

PRIVACY!?

None of us have a right to privacy anymore, hell this is the age of information.

Celebrities by nature are scrutinized, made fun of, celebrated when they do something humanitarian, torn apart by tabloids, and often followed in thier day to day activities, even when they are buying a damn cup of coffee.

So back to your question. Do they have a right to be private, have things that people don't know about and do not see, be able to run around cozumel naked a J bird......

Well they should, but do they get it? NO! Or very rarely.

Its part of the job. Being famous means you lose some of the private life that you may have had as a nobody. Star's thinking they can acheive privacy or that the public eye should not and cannot be focused on them are simpy stupid. Maybe they should give up the movie star thing if thats what they really want? Nah the 20 million a movie makes all the worth it right?

It's like telling a janitor that he will never have to clean up puke. Or telling a carny that someday he won't have to pack up and move to the next city. Certain undesireable elements come with all jobs.

P.S. Your sister is an idiot.

Answer 9

A person who faints at the sight of blood should probably stay away from a medical career. To most people that would be a no brainer. If you are a person who is not comfortable with something that is such a big part of who you are, then you should choose a career that doesn't require you to be the center of attention. Although times have changed somewhat for the better, Hollywood attitudes towards celebrity lifestyle choices and the reaction of the public has not kept up with the times. It's show BUSINESS after all, and doing the right thing can be seen by some of the higher ups in the business as an attack on their bottom line. It's hard enough to make it in the business as it is. I recently saw an interview with a young TV actor that came out of the closet because he found out he was soon to be outed. Beforehand there was a meeting at the studio and he said it was like 1940 all over again. The big wigs offered to help him smokescreen the whole thing with some high profile dates with women and so forth.

Answer 10

Yes, in the same way that every other citzen should have the right to keep their private lives private and quite frankly, I couldn't give a rat's blankity blank blank whether or not another person is gay/lesbian/bi whatever. Someone's sexuality (or race, creed, gender for that matter) should have no relevance when it comes to their job and how well they perform it. I also don't see what is to be gained by outing those who aren't ready or just don't want to share certain aspects of their life. Does knowing they are gay change the fact they are talented/untalented, beautiful/ugly, and so on? I don't think so.
My question is what is gained (besides mean spirited dare I say jealous publicity) by outing celebrities? I just don't get the whole controversy about it. Its really adolescent and annoying.

Now I do agree that celebrities have given up some rights to privacy just because they have worked to make themselves a public figure and that means they must be open to some public scrutiny, but getting that deep into people's personal lives (celebrity or not) is kind of obsessive and it makes me wonder what is lacking the lives of those who go after others weaknesses so viciously. You could say hey well tabloid magazines are all gossip but there is a point where cultural fun can go to far. Poking fun at fashion faux pas and what not I can understand. Its the rest that I don't get.

Answer 11

Well you've had 32 folks say "EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY".....

So I'll be the Devil's advocate:

When you become a celebrity you have ELECTED to be

(1) IN the limelight
(2) Considered a special and privileged individual
(3) Someone who gets immediate attention
(4) Someone who gets perks like best tables etc
(5) Someone who, when he/she speaks others STOP
(6) Someone who gets more money for what they do
(7) Someone who is coddled, adored and sought after


And for this wish to be in the PUBLIC FISHBOWL THERE IS A PRICE.


That cost is LOSS OF PRIVACY !!!


You can't have it both ways.


If you want to be private, then be private but don't ask the world to turn on the Klieg Lights, turn the spotlight on you and expect to get the same privacy.


Make your choice, quiet anonymity or noisy notoriety!

Forgive a few digusting examples to prove my point:


I am a private person so if my nose itches in the supermarket I can make sure no one is looking and pick it.

If my butt itches I can scratch it

If my nose runs I can blow it

BUT

A celebrity cannot do any of those things because there is always a smart, hungry guy up there on the mezzanine with a 1000 mm photo lens that gets that shot and can sell it for $500.

That is why a celebrity does not GET or DESERVE privacy.

He/she has made a choice and THAT is the price he/she pays.